Events in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and to a lesser extent
Jordan have led both administration officials and the chattering classes to conclude
that democracy is on the march in the Middle East. Having once again been
caught by surprise by events overseas -- one wonders where our intelligence
agencies have been hiding -- the Obama administration is now trying to push
itself into the forefront of those seeking democratic change in the region.
Yet
it was not democracy that led a young Tunisian to immolate himself and, apart
from English-speaking educated intellectuals, it does not appear that democracy
is what most people have been demonstrating about. Instead, what they are seeking,
first and foremost, is economic opportunity unfettered by corruption and
favoritism. Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire because he was prevented from
earning a modest living. Three Egyptians have burned themselves because of lack
of job opportunities.
Secondly, Tunisians and Egyptian appear to be seeking
responsive government, which is quite different from Western notions of
democracy. In fact, it is arguable that they and other demonstrators in the
Arab world would be quite comfortable living under a Chinese-style system,
where there is a high and consistent level of economic growth and standards of
living continue to rise. Would Tunisia have overthrown Ben Ali if its economy
grew, as it had in the 1990s, and if the President's family curbed their greed?
Would Mubarak be in the trouble he is now if he had a far greater percentage of
the population benefitting from Egypt's economic growth?
It is noteworthy that for all the talk of upheavals in the
Arab world, there has so far been little unrest in the traditional Gulf
emirates or in Saudi Arabia. The rulers of the smaller Gulf States have long
made it their policy to distribute wealth widely among their citizens. (Non-citizens
don't count, of course. And if they made any trouble they would be deported.)
Despite predictions of their imminent demise over the past two decades, the
Saudis likewise have so far remained quiet. The al-Saud family recognized some
ten years ago that it needed to spread more wealth to ensure the support of its
increasingly younger population; so far so good.
Even Bahrain, which might have been expected to be the scene
of riots, given the secondary status of the majority Sh'ia population, has not
witnessed any major demonstrations. Again, most of the Bahraini Sh'ia appear to
recognize that a stable Bahrain means more wealth for them too -- even if they
do not achieve economic parity with the dominant Sunnis. They also know that
Saudi tanks are not far from the causeway that links their state to its much
larger and more powerful neighbor, and that those tanks would be quick to cross
into the island kingdom if the ruling family came under siege.
COMMENTS (2)
Read More
